DOCSLIB.ORG

Out-Of-Place Debugging: a Debugging Architecture to Reduce Debugging Interference

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Out-Of-Place Debugging: a Debugging Architecture to Reduce Debugging Interference Out-Of-Place debugging: a debugging architecture to reduce debugging interference Matteo Marraa, Guillermo Politob, and Elisa Gonzalez Boixa a Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium b Univ. Lille, CNRS, Centrale Lille, Inria, UMR 9189 - CRIStAL - Centre de Recherche en Informatique Signal et Automatique de Lille, F-59000 Lille, France Abstract Context Recent studies show that developers spend most of their programming time testing, ver- ifying and debugging software. As applications become more and more complex, developers demand more advanced debugging support to ease the software development process. Inquiry Since the 70’s many debugging solutions have been introduced. Amongst them, online debuggers provide good insight on the conditions that led to a bug, allowing inspection and interaction with the variables of the program. However, most of the online debugging solutions introduce debugging interference to the execution of the program, i.e. pauses, latency, and evaluation of code containing side-effects. Approach This paper investigates a novel debugging technique called out-of-place debugging. The goal is to minimize the debugging interference characteristic of online debugging while allowing online remote ca- pabilities. An out-of-place debugger transfers the program execution and application state from the debugged application to the debugger application, each running in a different process. Knowledge On the one hand, out-of-place debugging allows developers to debug applications remotely, overcoming the need of physical access to the machine where the debugged application is running. On the other hand, debugging happens locally on the remote machine avoiding latency. That makes it suitable to be deployed on a distributed system and handle the debugging of several processes running in parallel. Grounding We implemented a concrete out-of-place debugger for the Pharo Smalltalk programming lan- guage. We show that our approach is practical by running several benchmarks, comparing our approach with a classic remote online debugger. We show that our prototype debugger outperforms a traditional remote debugger by 1000 times in several scenarios. Moreover, we show that the presence of our debugger does not impact the overall performance of an application. Importance This work combines remote debugging with the debugging experience of a local online debug- ger. Out-of-place debugging is the first online debugging technique that can minimize debugging interference while debugging a remote application. Yet, it still keeps the benefits of online debugging (e.g., step-by-step execution). This makes the technique suitable for modern applications which are increasingly parallel, dis- tributed and reactive to streams of data from various sources like sensors, UI, network, etc. ACM CCS 2012 Software and its engineering → Software testing and debugging; Keywords debugging tools, online debugging, remote debugging, distributed systems The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming Submitted December 1, 2017 Published November 7, 2018 doi 10.22152/programming-journal.org/2019/3/3 © Matteo Marra, Guillermo Polito, and Elisa Gonzalez Boix This work is licensed under a “CC BY-NC 4.0” license. In The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming, vol. 3, no. 2, 2019, article 3; 29 pages. Out-Of-Place debugging: a debugging architecture to reduce debugging interference 1 Introduction Debugging is one of the main activities in the development of modern applications [17]. A recent study conducted by Cambridge showed that most of the programming time is nowadays spent on testing, verifying and debugging software [4]. As software gets more complex, bugs get more sophisticated. Many difficulties raise when debugging parallel programs [30]. For instance, bugs may be caused by a particular interaction between many parallel components, or seen sporadically in concurrent processes. Understanding, replicating and solving such bugs is a challenging task that might take quite a lot of time and resources. Over the years several techniques were proposed to aid developers in the arduous task of debugging (section 2). In particular, there exist two well-known families of debuggers: online and offline debuggers [25, 30]. Online debuggers control theexe- cution of an application at the moment of a failure. They allow developers to interact smoothly with the target application, offering stepping and breakpoint operations that give immediate feedback to the developer. On the other hand, offline debuggers (or post-mortem debuggers) try to reconstruct the context of a bug once the process that failed is already finished. Such solutions analyse or replay log files, code dumps and/or execution traces to help the developer discover the source of the problem. Re- producing a bug with these techniques can be tedious and time-consuming, especially because many debugging cycles are required before the error happens again. Online solutions provide good insight into the conditions that led to a bug since they allow developers to inspect the state of the application, and to interact with it through the evaluation of expressions. However, online debuggers introduce debugging inter- ference (also known as the probe effect [25])1 due to the communication of processes and the performance penalties introduced by the debugging infrastructure. Such interference alters the behaviour of the application and makes a bug more difficult to reproduce during debugging.2 Contribution In this paper we present a novel debugging technique called out-of- place debugging (section 3). The goal is to combine the benefits of local and remote debugging, providing the latency of a local debugger while allowing developers to debug remote applications and scoping eventual side effects. When the debugged application is paused in a breakpoint or an exception, the execution stack and the application state are entirely transferred to the (remote) out-of-place debugger. The developer then proceeds to debug the application locally, with an entire copy of the program state. In this paper, we show the benefits of out-of-place debugging in terms of reduced latency and scoping of side effects, in different debugging scenarios. We also present our implementation of IDRA, a prototype of out-of-place debugger in Pharo Smalltalk. 1 Debugging interference is also known in computer science as the the observer effect. This states that an observer modifies the observed object while observing it. 2 A bug that disappears during debugging it is also known as a heisenbug. 3:2 Matteo Marra, Guillermo Polito, and Elisa Gonzalez Boix We show that the presence of our debugger does not impact application performance during normal execution. We also show that our prototype debugger performs better than a traditional remote debugger in some scenarios and can improve the debugging experience. 2 Motivation To show the kind of problems that arise while debugging modern applications, we introduce two debugging scenarios: (1) a distributed and parallel application that analyzes tweets and (2) a cyber physical system (CPS) that is remotely deployed and listening to data coming from a sensor. 2.1 Debugging Scenario 1: Twitter application Let us consider a distributed application that continuously analyzes tweets coming from a stream. For the purposes of this presentation, the relevant code of such an application is illustrated in listing 1. There are two methods: analyzeTweets that consumes a stream of tweets and processTweet: that creates a dictionary mapping each word occurring in the tweet with the number of occurrences in the tweet. Listing 1 A simple tweet consuming application 1 TwitterApplication>>analyzeTweets 2 | results | 3 results := OrderedCollection new. 4 [ twitterStream hasNext ] whileTrue: [ | tweet | 5 tweet := twitterStream next. 6 results nextPut: (self processTweet: tweet). 7 ] 8 self mergeDictionaries: results. 9 " 10 TwitterApplication>>processTweet: aTweet 11 | wordCount tweetObject text words | 12 tweetObject := self parseTweet: aTweet. 13 text := tweetObject text. 14 words := text findTokens. 15 wordCount := Dictionary new. 16 words do: [ :word | 17 (wordCount includesKey: word) 18 ifTrue: [ wordCount at: word put: 1+ (result at: word) ] 19 ifFalse: [ wordCount at: word put: 1] ]. 20 result " At first glance, the code looks correct and on the developer’s local machine thecode runs without problems. Now consider the same application deployed on a cluster, executed in parallel. In this scenario, the distributed setup makes it even more difficult to track bugs. 3:3 Out-Of-Place debugging: a debugging architecture to reduce debugging interference Concretely in this case, if the application is left running for hours or even days, depending on the number of tweets in the stream, an out-of-memory error happens. Our twitter stream is optimized with a read buffer to read and allocate memory in chunks of more optimal sizes. The developer that designed the buffering optimiza- tion accidentally introduced a bug: the buffered objects are not correctly released, generating a memory leak. Understanding the root cause of the problem is not an easy task. First, it is not easy to reproduce the conditions that make the bug appear. Even reproducing it in a production environment may take quite a long time for the error to appear. Second, the developer needs to perform several debugging cycles before finding the actual cause of the bug. 2.2 Debugging scenario 2: A temperature monitoring application Another common scenario
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysis and Exploration for New Generation Debuggers Thomas Dupriez, Guillermo Polito, Stéphane Ducasse
    Analysis and exploration for new generation debuggers Thomas Dupriez, Guillermo Polito, Stéphane Ducasse To cite this version: Thomas Dupriez, Guillermo Polito, Stéphane Ducasse. Analysis and exploration for new generation debuggers. International Workshop on Smalltalk Technology IWST’17, Sep 2017, Maribor, Slovenia. pp.5:1–5:6, 10.1145/3139903.3139910. hal-01585338 HAL Id: hal-01585338 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01585338 Submitted on 11 Sep 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Analysis and exploration for new generation debuggers Thomas Dupriez Guillermo Polito Stephane´ Ducasse ENS Paris-Saclay - RMoD, Inria RMoD - Univ. Lille, CNRS, Centrale RMoD, Inria Lille-Nord Europe Lille-Nord Europe Lille, Inria, UMR 9189 - CRIStAL - [email protected] [email protected] Centre de Recherche en Informatique Signal et Automatique de Lille, F-59000 Lille, France [email protected] Abstract offer a different perspective to this problem: it should be Locating and fixing bugs is a well-known time consuming possible to adapt a debugger to a given domain or task. task. Advanced approaches such as object-centric or back- In this position paper we motivate the need to mature and in-time debuggers have been proposed in the literature, still develop more advanced techniques by showing a complex in many scenarios developers are left alone with primitive debugging scenario obtained from a real use case.
    [Show full text]
  • Devops for Hybrid Cloud: an IBM Point of View
    IBM Cloud July 2017 Thought Leadership White Paper DevOps for hybrid cloud: an IBM point of view How DevOps for hybrid cloud can help organizations succeed with digital reinvention 2 DevOps for hybrid cloud: an IBM point of view Introduction The IBM point of view on DevOps makes the following DevOps started as a culture and set of practices to support assumptions: collaboration and communication across development and oper- ations, and to apply automation to key phases of the software ●● DevOps covers the end-to-end software delivery lifecycle delivery process. It has been popularized by successful new including an expanded set of stakeholders such as business companies developing business models and related applications owners and end users, and practices such as design thinking empowered by the cloud (cloud-native applications). More and user analytics. recently, large, established enterprises have recognized the need ●● DevOps adoption is expanding in large organizations as they to deliver innovation faster to stay relevant and capitalize on enable existing IT applications for cloud (cloud-enabled industry disruption, while also improving operational metrics for applications). New methods enable organizations to success- application quality and cost. DevOps and cloud have emerged as fully implement DevOps as they move to cloud. essential parts of their IT strategy as they improve core compe- ●● Hybrid cloud architecture is becoming the norm for both tency in continuous delivery of software-driven innovation. cloud-enabled and cloud-native applications. Hybrid cloud provides flexibility in deployment, enabling organizations to choose the right platform to run their workloads. ●● DevOps solutions can vary as teams across large organizations Business as usual have different goals, processes, culture and tools.
    [Show full text]
  • 21 Scenario-Based Programming, Usability-Oriented Perception
    Scenario-Based Programming, Usability-Oriented Perception GIORA ALEXANDRON, MICHAL ARMONI, MICHAL GORDON, and DAVID HAREL, Weizmann Institute of Science In this article, we discuss the possible connection between the programming language and the paradigm behind it, and programmers’ tendency to adopt an external or internal perspective of the system they develop. Based on a qualitative analysis, we found that when working with the visual, interobject language of live sequence charts (LSC), programmers tend to adopt an external and usability-oriented view of the system, whereas when working with an intraobject language, they tend to adopt an internal and implementation- oriented viewpoint. This is explained by first discussing the possible effect of the programming paradigm on programmers’ perception and then offering a more comprehensive explanation. The latter is based on a cognitive model of programming with LSC, which is an interpretation and a projection of the model suggested by Adelson and Soloway [1985] onto LSC and scenario-based programming, the new paradigm on which LSC is based. Our model suggests that LSC fosters a kind of programming that enables iterative refinement of the artifact with fewer entries into the solution domain. Thus, the programmer can make less context switching between the solution domain and the problem domain, and consequently spend more time in the latter. We believe that these findings are interesting mainly in two ways. First, they characterize an aspect of problem-solving behavior that to the best of our knowledge has not been studied before—the programmer’s perspective. The perspective can potentially affect the outcome of the problem-solving process, such as by leading the programmer to focus on different parts of the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Scenario-Driven Continuous Mobility Requirements Analysis in Mobile App Maintenance
    Scenario-Driven Continuous Mobility Requirements Analysis in Mobile App Maintenance Xiaozhou Li1, Zheying Zhang2 and Timo Poranen3 1 University of Tampere, Kalevantie 4, 33014, Tampere, Finland {xiaozhou.li; zheying.zhang; timo.t.poranen}@uta.fi Abstract. As mobile devices have become an indispensable part of people’s lives, the growth of mobile app market is inevitably rapid. Accordingly, the mobile app users have increasing demands on the quality of the apps. Their tol- erance towards bugs and poor usability of the apps is growing low. In addition, as the mobile devices and apps have enabled users to use them in various con- texts, the mobility of the apps, referred to as their capability to provide ubiqui- tous services with quality, is also required. In this study, we propose the scenar- io-driven approach of mobility requirements analysis with context and ways of interaction. It supports the continuous requirements analysis in the maintenance of mobile apps where their mobility is constantly maintained despite the chang- es in the features. Keywords: Mobile App, Mobility, Requirements, Scenario, Situational Con- texts, Interaction, Maintenance. 1 Introduction The mobility of mobile apps, as their most significant feature, is defined as the ability to access services ubiquitously, on the move, though wireless networks and various mobile devices [1]. It enables the users to access the services with the independence from time and space [2]. The mobility of mobile apps is closely related to their con- text of use, especially the situational context, which largely influences the post- adoption behaviors of the users, including use continuance, word-of-mouth, and com- plaints [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Accelerating Software Development Through Agile Practices - a Case Study of a Small-Scale, Time-Intensive Web Development Project at a College-Level IT Competition
    Journal of Information Technology Education: Volume 11, 2012 Innovations in Practice Accelerating Software Development through Agile Practices - A Case Study of a Small-scale, Time-intensive Web Development Project at a College-level IT Competition Xuesong (Sonya) Zhang Bradley Dorn California State Polytechnic California State University, University, Pomona, CA, USA Fresno, CA, USA [email protected] [email protected] Executive Summary Agile development has received increasing interest both in industry and academia due to its bene- fits in developing software quickly, meeting customer needs, and keeping pace with the rapidly changing requirements. However, agile practices and scrum in particular have been mainly tested in mid- to large-size projects. In this paper, we present findings from a case study of agile prac- tices in a small-scale, time-intensive web development project at a college-level IT competition. Based on the observation of the development process, the interview of the project team, and the study of relevant documents, we describe how agile practices, such as daily scrums, backlogs, and sprints, were successfully adopted to the project development. We also describe several support- ing activities that the team employed, including cross-leveling of knowledge, socialization, and multiple communication modes. Finally, we discuss the benefits and challenges of implementing agile practices in the case project reported, as well as contribution and limitation of our findings. Keywords: Agile, Scrum, Software development, Project management, Web application. Introduction Created to be a lightweight software development method by 17 software developers at a ski re- sort a decade ago (“Agile Software Development,” 2011), agile development has received in- creasing interest both in industry and academia due to its benefits in developing software more quickly and at lower costs, meeting customer needs, and keeping pace with the rapidly changing requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Use Cases, User Stories and Bizdevops
    Use Cases, User Stories and BizDevOps Peter Forbrig University of Rostock, Chair in Software Engineering, Albert-Einstein-Str. 22, 18055 Rostock [email protected] Abstract. DevOps is currently discussed a lot in computer science communi- ties. BizDev (business development) is only mentioned once in a computer sci- ence paper in connection with Continuous Software Engineering. Otherwise it is used in the domain of business administration only. Additionally, there seems to be a different interpretation of the term in the two communities. The paper discusses the different interpretations found in the literature. Addi- tionally, the idea of BizDevOps is discussed in conjunction with further ideas of taking new requirements for software features into account. These requirements can be described by models on different level of granularity. Starting points are use cases, use-case slices, user stories, and scenarios. They have to be commu- nicated between stakeholders. It is argued in this paper that storytelling can be a solution for that. It is used in as well in software development as in manage- ment. Keywords: BizDev, DevOps, BizDevOps, Continuous Requirements Engineer- ing, Continuous Software Engineering, Agile Software Development, Storytell- ing. 1 Introduction Developing Businesses if often related with the development of software because nowadays business processes have to be supported by IT. Continuous requirements engineering has to be performed to provide continuously the optimal support. Contin- uous business development seems to be a good description for the combined devel- opment of software and business. This term is not used so very often. Nevertheless, it exists like in [17]. However, more often the abbreviation BizDev (business development) is used.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Development a Practical Approach!
    Software Development A Practical Approach! Hans-Petter Halvorsen https://www.halvorsen.blog https://halvorsen.blog Software Development A Practical Approach! Hans-Petter Halvorsen Software Development A Practical Approach! Hans-Petter Halvorsen Copyright © 2020 ISBN: 978-82-691106-0-9 Publisher Identifier: 978-82-691106 https://halvorsen.blog ii Preface The main goal with this document: • To give you an overview of what software engineering is • To take you beyond programming to engineering software What is Software Development? It is a complex process to develop modern and professional software today. This document tries to give a brief overview of Software Development. This document tries to focus on a practical approach regarding Software Development. So why do we need System Engineering? Here are some key factors: • Understand Customer Requirements o What does the customer needs (because they may not know it!) o Transform Customer requirements into working software • Planning o How do we reach our goals? o Will we finish within deadline? o Resources o What can go wrong? • Implementation o What kind of platforms and architecture should be used? o Split your work into manageable pieces iii • Quality and Performance o Make sure the software fulfills the customers’ needs We will learn how to build good (i.e. high quality) software, which includes: • Requirements Specification • Technical Design • Good User Experience (UX) • Improved Code Quality and Implementation • Testing • System Documentation • User Documentation • etc. You will find additional resources on this web page: http://www.halvorsen.blog/documents/programming/software_engineering/ iv Information about the author: Hans-Petter Halvorsen The author currently works at the University of South-Eastern Norway.
    [Show full text]
  • The Devops Journey: from Waterfall to Continuous Delivery
    WHITE PAPER THE DEVOPS JOURNEY: FROM WATERFALL TO CONTINUOUS DELIVERY Implementing an agile, DevOps-centered workflow involves several distinct steps. In other words, the process required to evolve from traditional, “waterfall”-style development to continuous delivery of software is a journey, not something that organizations can implement all at once. While many organizations today have begun the DevOps journey by adopting some tools and methodologies that promote agility, a lack of fully automated testing often prevents them from completing it. The integration of efficient automated testing into workflows is therefore a crucial step for organizations seeking to achieve full agility and complete the DevOps journey. TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Executive Summary 6 Automated testing is not a choice -- it’s a necessity 3 Stages of agility 6 Web apps: From waterfall to 3 Waterfall continuous delivery 3 Fast waterfall 7 Why automated testing is uniquely important to DevOps 4 Continuous integration 8 Conclusion 4 Continuous delivery 5 Moving down the trail with automating testing 5 Increasing testing agility 5 Automated testing 5 Cloud-based testing 6 Parallel testing 6 Shift-left testing EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DevOps. Agility. Continuous delivery. These are the buzzwords of the new software development and testing landscape. They describe some of the core values and processes that characterize an efficient, modern workflow. But they are also terms that can be misleading. That’s because they’re easy to conceptualize as qualities or values that an organization either has or does not have. In many common depictions, a company either “does” DevOps or it doesn’t. It’s agile or it’s not.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taxonomy for Scenario Use in Requirements Elicitation and Analysis of Software Systems
    A Taxonomy for Scenario Use in Requirements Elicitation and Analysis of Software Systems Brian D. Chance Bonnie E. Melhart Motorola Cellular Division TCU Fort Worth, TX 76137 Fort Worth, TX 76129 [email protected] [email protected] Abstract above. It is very difficult to see what is missing from a document by simply reading the document. Scenarios This work introduces a taxonomy of scenario use help one read and review with a different viewpoint with the objective to improve completeness of the because they encourage consideration of the details of requirements specification. Indications are given for each requirement instead of a general review. In future work to enable scenario development for some particular they enable discussion and review of dynamic weak categories of the taxonomy. behavior of the system under development. We are investigating scenarios as a means to improve completeness in a requirements specification document. Introduction Scenario Usage In systems development the first step in providing a solution that meets the customer’s needs is to define Scenario usage in development of software systems what problem must be solved. Requirements elicitation varies greatly and even the definition of a scenario is not and analysis is perhaps more iterative than any other consistent. Some use scenario to imply a particular phase of systems and software development. Rarely is customer use case, others refer to any sequence of system this process complete in one pass. Each iteration usually events as a scenario, and still others apply scenarios to includes these main activities: documenting the business goals or software inspections. We take the very requirements a system must provide; refining these general definition that a scenario refers to an ordered requirements; analysis for omissions, contradictions, and collection of inputs or internal states that produce a ambiguities; and review with consideration for a balance specific result.
    [Show full text]
  • SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT MODELS and THEIR REAL ASPECTS Divya Tanwar Sbs , Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU, Delhi
    SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT MODELS AND THEIR REAL ASPECTS Divya Tanwar Sbs , Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU, Delhi ABSTRACT Software development life cycle models are the most integral part when it comes to software development which can fully justify today’s digitally environments with increasing mobile, web, and desktop applications. This research deals with a vital and important issue in information technology with respect to various models used in development. It is concerned with the software management processes that examine the area of software development through the development models, which are known as software development life cycle. It represents five of the development models namely, waterfall, Iteration, prototype and spiral and their real time examples which we can relate in our day to day life. These models are complex and difficult to identify related to real time scenario. Therefore, the main objective of this research is to represent different models of software development and make a comparison between them to show the features and defects of each model. This paper demystifies these concepts so that the SDLC is correctly understood with their real time. Keywords: Iterative Prototyping SDLC, Software development life cycle, Spiral model, Real aspects, Waterfall model I. INTRODUCTION Software development life cycle models are the important part of the Software Engineering which is a discipline whose aim to develop quality software, which is on time, with minimum cost and can satisfy the organization needs. There are basically four main models in SDLC with different characteristics and drawbacks [2] .The most difficult task is to identify the model which suits the organization structure, for this every organization need to know the model and its real time application so the user can relate, understand and find out how its actually working.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Openup (Open Unified Process)
    Introduction to OpenUP (Open Unified Process) Different projects have different process needs. Typical factors dictate the needs for a more formal or agile process, such as team size and location, architecture complexity, technology novelty, conformance to standards, among others. Nevertheless, there are good software development practices that benefit any project team and help them to be more effective. This paper introduces the building blocks of OpenUP – an agile and Unified Process that contains the minimal set of practices that help teams to be more effective in developing software. OpenUP embraces a pragmatic, agile philosophy that focuses on the collaborative nature of software development. It is a tools-agnostic, low-ceremony process that can be used as is or extended to address a broad variety of project types. What is OpenUP OpenUP is a minimally sufficient software development process – meaning that only fundamental content is included. Thus, it does not provide guidance on many topics that projects may deal with, such as large team sizes, compliance, contractual situations, safety or mission critical applications, technology-specific guidance, etc. However, OpenUP is complete in the sense it can be manifested as an entire process to build a system. For addressing needs that are not covered in its content, OpenUP is extensible to be used as foundation on which process content can be added or tailored as needed. OpenUP is an agile process. Though OpenUP is lightweight, there is much more to agility than simply being light. Most recognized agile practices are intended to get a team communicating with one another providing a shared understanding of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Scrum Methods to ITS Projects
    Applying Scrum Methods to ITS Projects www.its.dot.gov/index.htm Final Report — August 2017 Publication Number: FHWA-JPO-17-508 1.1.1.1.1.1 Produced by Noblis, Inc. U.S. Department of Transportation ITS Joint Program Office Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The U.S. Government is not endorsing any manufacturers, products, or services cited herein and any trade name that may appear in the work has been included only because it is essential to the contents of the work. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-JPO-17-508 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date August 2017 Applying Scrum Methods to ITS Projects 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Barbara Staples, Dawn Hardesty, Blake Christie, Taylor Deurbrouck, and Josh Seder (Noblis), and Manny Insignares and Patrick Chan (ConSysTec) 9. Performing Organization Name And Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Noblis 600 Maryland Ave., SW, Suite 755 11. Contract or Grant No. Washington, DC 20024 DTFH61-12-D-00042 T-5010 Consensus Systems Technologies Corporation (ConSysTec) 301 East 87th Street, Suite 7A New York, NY, USA 10128-4807 Under contract to Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered ITS-Joint Program Office Final Report 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 14.
    [Show full text]